4 


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING REVISION 

of the 

IMMIGRATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

made by 

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE 

tv 

THE BOARD OF DELEGATES ON CIVIL RIGHTS 
OF THE UNION OF AMERICAN 
HEBREW CONGREGATIONS 

THE INDEPENDENT ORDER B’NAI B’RITH 

to 

THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COMMISSION 


■’> > 
> > j 



NEW YORK 

1910 





LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 


New York, November 7, 1910. 
Senator W. P. Dillingham, Chairman, 

United States Immigration Commission, 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

In response to the invitation of the Immigration 
Commission to the American Jewish Committee, 
the Board of Delegates on Civil Rights of the 
Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the 
Independent Order B’nai B’rith, we, the under¬ 
signed, acting on behalf of these organizations, beg 
to submit herewith the following recommendations, 
supplementary to and in amplification of the oral 
argument made at the hearing before the Commis¬ 
sion on December 4, 1909, and the written recom¬ 
mendations submitted on July 9, last, by Dr. Cyrus 
Adler and the Hon. Simon Wolf, acting on behalf 
of the American Jewish Committee and the Board 
of Delegates, respectively. For convenience, the 
latter have been incorporated in the recommenda¬ 
tions herewith presented. 

Very respectfully, 


FOR THE AMERICAN 
JEWISH COMMITTEE 

Mayer Sulzberger, Philadelphia 
Julian W. Mack, Chicago 
Jacob H. Hollander, Baltimore 
Isaac W. Bernheim, Louisville 
Cyrus Adler, Philadelphia 
Harry Cutler, Providence, R. I. 
Samuel Dorf, New York 
Judah L. Magnes, New York 
Louis Marshall, New York 
Julius Rosenwald, Chicago 
Jacob H. Schiff, New York 
I sa dor Sobel, Erie, Pa. 

Cyrus L. Sulzberger, New York 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 


FOR THE BOARD OF DELEGATES ON 
CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE UNION 
OF AMERICAN HEBREW 
CONGREGATIONS 


Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C., Chairman 

VI ax J. Kohler, New York ) 

. T T? v vi Sub Committee 

\bram I. Elkus, New York\ 


FOR THE INDEPENDENT ORDER 
B’NAI B’RITH 

Simon Wolf, Resident Washington Member 
Adolph Kraus, Chicago, President 
Philip Stein, Chicago ) 

T 0 . T • f Advisory Committee 

Jacob Furth, St. Louis) J 






\ 


Lrin 

. _ .. . ■ 

16 ;$n 









l 





I. 


EXISTING LAW IN THE MAIN SATISFAC¬ 
TORY. 

The present law, except as to administrative de¬ 
tails, and desirable amendments hereinafter speci¬ 
fied, is satisfactory, has been productive of great 
good, has resulted in the exclusion of those whose 
presence here might be injurious to the public weal, 
and has afforded our country the labor and enter¬ 
prise which it required, and without which the 
development of our great industries and public- 
works would be impeded. We desire to emphasize 
at this point that the immigration laws of the 
United States, except those dealing with Chinese 
(with which the present statement does not con¬ 
cern itself ) have always been enacted to regulate 
immigration. They are designed to exclude those 
persons only who would inflict injury upon the 
body politic, either physically, mentally, or morally. 
They are peremptorily exclusive also of those who 
come within the definition of contract labor and 
those whose ticket or passage is paid for “by any 
corporation, association, society, municipality, or 
foreign government, either directly or indirectly.” 
The earlier immigration policy of the United 
States was intended to encourage immigration. 
This policy lias not been reversed nor is it con¬ 
ceived that such reversal is to be seriously con¬ 
sidered. The act of 1868 (see page 14 post) is 
a true expression of the settled national policy.. No 
immigration law of the United States has ever been 
restrictive (except as already specified) but always 
regulative, and the statements made here and 
abroad to the contrary are practically without 
foundation. The head-tax was not designed as a 
restrictive measure, but lias always been intended 
to medt the cost of regulating immigration and 
caring for the immigrant. 




3 


/ 


II. 


THE IMMIGRANT ENTITLED TO DUE PRO¬ 
CESS OF LAW. 

1. Immigrants arriving at United States Ports 
are entitled to due process of law in form and in 
substance, on their application for admission. The 
present law (Section 25) requires that decisions 
of Boards of Special Inquiry shall be “rendered 
solely upon the evidence adduced before the board 
of special inquiry” in the presence of the immigrant 
or his counsel, so that the im migrant may know what 
he has to meet. Departures from this requirement 
to the prejudice of the immigrant , are of frequent 
occurrence, and should be effectively prevented. 

Argument : Recent judicial decisions establish 
the proposition that it is a denial of due process 
of law, which justifies judicial intervention, if evi¬ 
dence is withheld by the Government from the ex¬ 
amination of the immigrant or his counsel, but 
is nevertheless submitted to the reviewing bodv or 
is withheld, by the immigration officials from con¬ 
sideration on appeal, (See: In re Can Pon, 108 F. 
R. 479, C. C. A.; Chin Yow vs. U. S., 208 U. S., 8; 
Hopkins vs. Fachant, 130 F. R. 838, C. C. A.; Davies 
vs. Manalies, 179 F. R. 818 C. C. A.), and where con¬ 
jecture is substituted for evidence. (U. S. vs. Wong 
Chong, 92 F. R. Ill, Coxe, J.) This departure 
from due process of law, both in hearings before 
Boards of Special Inquiry and on appeal is a matter 
of constant occurrence, to the prejudice of the im¬ 
migrant who is kept ignorant of the evidence 
against him. Records on appeal which have been 
examined show that in numerous instances, mem¬ 
bers of the Boards of Special Inquiry and Com¬ 
missioners of Immigration attempt to decide cases 
on arbitrary assumptions where, contrary to law, 
facts to warrant them do not appear in the record 
sent up on appeal and which have in reality no 

4 


/ 


bases in fact. A common illustration of tlie denial 
of due process of law is the assumption that the 
occupation of the applicant is or is not a ‘‘congested 
industry,” so as to make it probable that he can¬ 
not secure occupation in it after his arrival, the 
contract labor provision preventing his securing a 
position before arrival. Frequently unwarranted 
assumptions are made that money actually de¬ 
posited and offers to secure positions are “charity” 
and are not made bona fide. Courts recognize the 
necessary limitations upon their right to take ju¬ 
dicial notice of matters in general, especially where 
the matter is not positively known or is in doubt 
or relates to a subject which is constantly chang¬ 
ing, (See: Austin vs. Texas, 179 U. S. 343, 345; 
American Sulphate Co. vs. D. Gross Co., 157 F. K. 
G60, C. C. A.) It is accordingly of great import¬ 
ance that the immigrants be accorded due process 
of law with respect to all investigations relating to 
them. 

\ 

2. The right of the immigrant to counsel be¬ 
fore Boards of Special Inquiry should not be de¬ 
nied, and the hearings should be public as recom¬ 
mended by the Ellis Island Commission of 1903. 

Argument: See Exhibit A for the recommenda¬ 
tions of that Commission, and B, Brief in the 
Matter of Hersch Skuratowski, Point VII, pp. 37- 
42. 


3. The methods of hearing appeals should be 
improved, including the granting of reasonable op¬ 
portunity to the immigrant, first, to see the evi¬ 
dence, and, second, to offer new evidence and sub¬ 
mit briefs. 


Argument: Note facts involved in the group 
of cases in Brief in the Matter of Hersch Skuratow¬ 
ski, Points VIII and IX, pp. 43-46, Exhibit B. 

4. The • provisions of the act of 1891, reenacted 
in the present laic, (Sections 25 and 10), forbidding 


5 


judicial review of the determinations of executive 
officers excluding immigrants, should be repealed 
in so far as they prevent judicial review of ques¬ 
tions of law merely, but not of questions of fact . 

Argument: No other class of cases is beyond 
judicial review, yet personal liberty is even more 
precious than property rights. A serious and ano¬ 
malous situation arises when, as to protection of 
their most cherished rights, thousands of persons 
are put beyond the reach of the courts, particu¬ 
larly when there are presented serious questions 
of law affecting their rights, and when the execu¬ 
tive tribunals deciding the cases act behind closed 
doors. Since revolutionary days, when the famous 
Massachusetts Bill of Rights was adopted, we have 
recognized that ours is a “government of laws, and 
not of men.” Confusion, demoralization and in¬ 
justice are bound to result, when executive action 
is made non-reviewable by the courts. There is 
no danger of the courts admitting persons really in¬ 
competent, nor even of their reviewing conflicting 
questions of fact previously determined against 
the immigrant by executive officers; the result 
would merely be to prevent illegal executive action, 
and to make executive rulings conform to law. 

» 

5. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor and 
the Attorney General should jointly prepare and 
publish a compilation of judicial decisions and 
opinions rendered by the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor and his legal advisers, for the guidance 
of immigration inspectors and the public generally. 

Argument: The purpose of this recommenda¬ 
tion is to secure uniformity of action and correct 
determinations by immigration officials in accord¬ 
ance with law. Much uncertainty and confusion 
prevail among inspectors as to the proper inter¬ 
pretation of the law. Important authoritative de¬ 
cisions construing the statutes were handed down 
prior to the statute making administrative decis- 


ions non-reviewable,' and there have been a few 
judicial decisions since then dealing with cases 
reviewable because of alleged denial of due process 
of law. There have also been authoritative rulings 
and opinions handed down by the Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor and his legal advisers, (the At¬ 
torney General and the Solicitor of the Depart¬ 
ment) but these are difficult of access and widely 
scattered. Moreover there have been various circu¬ 
lars and instructions issued by the subordinate im¬ 
migration officials, the legality and correctness of 
which, as expositions of the law, have been chal¬ 
lenged on behalf of immigrants, but the matters 
have not yet been determined by the courts. It is ac¬ 
cordingly of great importance that such an authori¬ 
tative compilation as above referred to be pub¬ 
lished and distributed among immigration officials 
and the public at large. 

No such compilations have been issued since 
1899, when the Treasury Department issued a “Di 
gest of Immigration Laws and Decisions.” This has 
long been out of print. The fact that for over twen¬ 
ty years the decisions of immigration officials have 
been practically non-reviewable by the courts makes 
it all the more important on the one hand proper¬ 
ly to educate the Government officials who pass on 
nearly a million applications for entrance into 
the United States every year, and on the other 
hand to enable immigrants and their friends to 
ascertain, before embarkation for the United States, 
what the requirements of our laws are. The adop¬ 
tion of novel, constantly changing, and controverted 
theories of construction of the laws by subordinate 
immigration officials having coercive powers over 
their subordinates, makes it all the more impor¬ 
tant to secure such official compilations to guide 
both Government officials and immigrants. In fact, 
both Section 1 of the Immigration Act of 1907, and 
the corresponding section of the Act of 1903, provide 1 
that the money received from the head-tax on im¬ 
migrants should be employed in part to defray “the 


7 


cost of reports of decisions of the Federal Courts 
and digests thereof, for the use of the Commissioner 
General of Immigration.” This of course also con¬ 
templated publication. This express mandate of 
Congress, so important to the interest of thousands, 
has been wholly ignored. An examination of many 
records of exclusions shows that an appreciable 
and increasing number of questionable exclusions 
is taking place. Instructions to inspectors, secret¬ 
ly issued, carelessly phrased and of doubtful legal¬ 
ity, are no substitute for such authoritative publica¬ 
tion. 

More accurate information abroad as to the pur¬ 
port of our laws, would deter many incompetent 
persons from embarking for the United States. 
It appears from the Government’s records, that 
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, 65,000 
persons abroad, after paying for their tickets in 
whole or in part, were refused passage for this 
country by reason of physical defects disclosed by 
the medical examination at the port of intended 
departure—five times as many as the total number 
of exclusions for all causes for the same period 
here. Such a compilation, published in various 
languages, would also greatly discourage the mi¬ 
gration of persons incompetent on other than medi¬ 
cal grounds. In fact, while the Immigration Bur¬ 
eau was a branch of the Treasury Department, im¬ 
migration decisions were published as rendered, 
in the weekly “Synopsis of Treasury Decisions,” 
subsequently bound and issued in book form an¬ 
nually or semi-annually; even this has now ceased, 
though becoming more necessary day by day, as the 
laws are now administered by a different Depart¬ 
ment (See Hearings before Committee on Im¬ 
migration and Naturalization, House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, 61st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 348 to 352, 356 
to 360, and passim, hereto annexed as Exhibit C.) 

6. Appointments to Boards of Special Inquiry 
should he made hy the Department of Commerce 


8 



and Labor, and should not be limited to immigra¬ 
tion inspectors. These officials should have ade¬ 
quate salaries, in order to secure efficient service . 

Arugment: See, for examples, the facts devel¬ 
oped and described in Exhibit B, Brief in the Mat¬ 
ter of Hersch Skuratowski, especially pages 17- 
37. 


7. A circular letter issued by the Commissioner 
General of Immigration, dated June 21, 1910, as 
to the provisions of the law, concerning the deten¬ 
tion of immigrants for hearings before Boards of 
Special Inquiry, has lately enormously increased 
the number of unjustified exclusions. 

Argument: The law (Section 21) provides that 
every alien who may not appear to the examining 
inspector at the port of arrival to be clearly and 
beyond a doubt entitled to land, shall be detained 
for examination in relation thereto by a Board of 
Special Inquiry. The purpose of this provision 
was merely to insure more careful and mature in¬ 
vestigation and consideration of cases by a board 
of three than could be accorded by the hasty exami¬ 
nation on the line by a single inspector. The stat¬ 
ute nowhere makes this rule as to proof of entry 
“clearly and beyond a doubt” applicable elsewhere 
than to the examining inspector “on the line;" 
on the contrary, after examination “on the line" 
a different rule applies. In fact, the courts have 
all emphatically and unmistakably held that aliens 
are entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubt 
as to the right of entry, and that our Immigration 
Laws, like all laws in restraint of liberty are to 
be fairly and liberally construed in favor of in¬ 
dividual liberty. (Moffat vs. United States, 128 
F. R., 375, 378, C. C. A. ; Tsoi Sim vs. United 
States, 116 F. R., 920 C. C. A.; Japanese Immi¬ 
grant Case, 189 U. S., S. S. 100; Lau Ow Bew 
vs. U. S., 144 U. S., 47, 59; Rodgers vs. U. S., 
152 F. R., 346, 350 C. C. A.; In Re Tong Tan, 
161 F. R., 618, Aff. as to Can Pon in 168 F. R., 479; 


9 


Botes vs. Davis, 173 F. 11. 996; Lieber’s Hermen¬ 
eutics (3rd Ed.) pp. 128-9, 137; Harten vs. Gold¬ 
stein, 20 App. Div. 203, 206; Am. & Eng. Ency. of 
Law (2nd Ed.) Vol. 26, pp. 661-2, 659, 646-8; Coffin 
vs. U. S., 156 U. S., 432). 

The circular letter in question emphasizes with 
much detail the necessity for proof before the in¬ 
spector on the line as to the immigrant’s being 
“clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land,” but 
makes no reference to the fact that such rule of 
proof does not apply before the Board of Special 
Inquiry. Consequently many inspectors sitting 
on Boards of Special Inquiry conceive it to be their 
duty in this capacity as well, to exact proof clearly 
and beyond a doubt in default of which they order 
deportation. Even if this oversight be inadvertent, 
it must be remembered that inspectors to whom the 
circulars were addressed are not lawyers, and the 
Department has not rectified the oversight by a 
supplementary circular. 

This circular is entirely too harsh and rigid even 
as an exposition of the law of burden of proof to 
be borne by the alien, to secure admittance without 

t/ 7 

detention for the hearing before the Board of 
Special Inquiry. After a general statement as to 
alleged unauthorized leniency in primary inspec¬ 
tion in the past, inspectors are instructed to make 
particular inquiry into an}’' element of assistance 
in each case and as to the alien’s occupation, his 
physical condition, his particular destination, the 
likelihood of his obtaining early employment at his 
occupation, the amount of funds at his command, 
etc., and the circular then goes on to say “the in¬ 
spector must not leniently conjecture that the alien 
will be able to get along, but such fact must appear 
clearly and beyond a doubt ” In view of the fact 
that the contract labor provision expressly forbids 
aliens securing positions before coming over, it is 
in almost every case possible for an unlearned in¬ 
spector to hold that the mere fact that a man has 


10 


i 



no position renders his ability to get one a mere 
matter of conjecture, and that he may properly be 
held likely to become a public charge. By this 
process of reasoning, he elevates a mere possibility 
of not getting work into a likelihood to become a 
public charge, whereas, in a country like ours where 
labor is needed, no capable, healthy person, willing 
to work, can rightfully be held likely to become a 
public charge. In this connection, a very able 
editorial from the “N. Y. Evening Post” of July 
16, 1909, is very much in point: 

Once a foreigner has shown that he is able 
bodied, free from contagious diseases, and 
neither a criminal, an anarchist, nor poly¬ 
gamist, nor certain to become a public 
charge, he has made out a prim a facie case 
for his admission. 

* * * As to the fear of letting in aliens 

to become public charges upon public chari¬ 
ty, it seems to us that the provision of the 
law which orders such immigrants back 
within three years after their arrival, should 
encourage clemency at Ellis Island, rather 
than harshness. If the immigrant who falls 
into pauperism can be gotten rid of within 
three years, why should our immigration 
officers speculate excessively upon the 
chances of an immigrant becoming a pauper? 
Here again he should be given the benefit 
of the doubt—given a chance to show that 
what this country offers its newcomers is 
not poverty, but a living.” 

Moreover, this circular is in the respects speci¬ 
fied similar to one issued by Commissioner of Im¬ 
migration Williams, of the Port of New York, on 
June 15, 1909, in which in dealing with determina¬ 
tions as to entry, and not merely for detentions for 
the Board of Special Inquiry, lie instructed his 
subordinates: “It is necessary that the standard 



of inspection at Ellis Island be raised. Notice here¬ 
of is given publicity in order that the intending im¬ 
migrants may be advised before embarkation, that 
our immigration laws will be strictly enforced.” 
As pointed out above, the courts have established 
the rule of law that immigration acts must be fair¬ 
ly and reasonably construed in favor of immigrants 
and not rigidly and harshly against them. 

The legal advisers of the Department of Com¬ 
merce and Labor have on occasions decided adverse¬ 
ly to the immigrant on points of law where they 
have themselves regarded their opinion as of doubt¬ 
ful validity, and this despite express recognition of 
inability to secure judicial review. A typical il¬ 
lustration of this is afforded by the remarks of the 
Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and La¬ 
bor in Decision No. Ill, p. 15 in the so-called 
“South Carolina Laborers’ Case.” 

8. The assisted immigrant and prepaid ticket 
provisions of the statute (Section 2), should be 
amended by omitting the confusing “burden of 
proof” provision. The provision should be recast 
so as to carry out the intent of the framers by con¬ 
fining it to contract labor cases and cases of im¬ 
migrants whose passage has been prepaid by “cor¬ 
porations, associations, etc.” 

Argument: The Committee of Congress which 
reported the original “assisted immigrant” pro¬ 
visions in 1891, (Report of Select Committee on 
Immigration, January 14,1891, 52d Cong., 2d. Sess., 
House Report No. 3472, p. IV.) said wisely: 

“Assisted immigration is of two kinds: Those 
assisted by friends from this side of the water is 
the best class of immigration, for they have rela¬ 
tives or friends here who will care for them in their 
untried surroundings. But the immigrant assisted 
from the other side usually has no friends here, and 
if any on the other side, their chiefest interest is 


12 


iii getting rid of what is likely soon to become a 
burden. The assisted ticket immigrant should not 
be made an excluded class, but our experience lias 
been so unfortunate that it is prudent to have him 
show affirmatively that he does not belong to one 
of the excluded classes.” 

The “assisted immigrant” provisions of the law 
are still based on this broad-minded premise. They 
merely aim to exclude undesirable persons brought 
over by contract-labor employers, seeking to se¬ 
cure cheap labor at the expense of home labor, 
and at scales of wages below our prevailing rates, 
and undesirables whose passage was paid by a for¬ 
eign government, corporation, etc. Again the law 
is merely regulative and only imposes the burden 
of proof upon the immigrant of affirmatively show¬ 
ing the right of entry, except where such employer 
of contract labor or foreign state or organization 
has paid for the ticket or passage in whole or in 
part. 

The purpose of these provisions must be held 
in mind in arriving at their proper construction. 
Paupers, i. e ., recipients of assistance for their 
support from the state or some division thereof 
are independently excluded, and the intent of the 
law is that in addition, persons unable to or barely 
able to support themselves abroad under normal 
conditions, and whose immigration was aided by 
foreign governments or charitable organizations 
in the manner specified are questionable acquisi¬ 
tions. Such statutes, reasonably construed, do not 
forbid even the part payment of passage-money of 
self-supporting persons overwhelmed by some sud¬ 
den calamity, like the Sicilian earthquake or the 
present day Russian persecution, or such forms 
of persecution as led to the Puritan settlement of 
New England, the Catholic settlement of Mary¬ 
land, the Quaker settlement of Pennsylvania, or 
the Huguenot emigration to South Carolina. Much 
less do they forbid assistance rendered to victims 


13 


of persecution, other than the payment of passage 
in whole or in part. The exodus of such unfortu¬ 
nates, suddenly and unwillingly compelled to seek 
new homes in a land of promise, does not, even 
prima facie , indicate likelihood to become a public 
charge. It would shock the American people, in¬ 
expressibly, however, to know that the unfortu¬ 
nate victims of the Sicilian earthquake were, in 
a number of instances, deported from our 
shores as “assisted immigrants” under a blunder¬ 
ing administration of our laws, solely because they 
received some of the aid their sympathizing fel- 
lowmen rushed to tender to them in their terrible, 
sudden distress. Similarly, the able-bodied, in¬ 
dustrious Jewish victims of Russia’s fiendish fan¬ 
aticism cannot be lawfully excluded under exist¬ 
ing law, even if they have been aided in paying their 
passage by sympathetic friends or charitable or¬ 
ganizations. Much more is this true when such aid 
lias not had any relation to payment of passage. 

Jefferson in his Presidential message of 1801, 
established our American principle in the famous 
words: “Shall oppressed humanity find no 

asylum on this globe? . . . might not the gen¬ 

eral character and capabilities of a citizen be safely 
communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide 
purpose of embarking his life and fortunes perman¬ 
ently with us . . . ?” This doctrine found a 

permanent place in our statute books at the close of 
a former “Know-Nothing” era, when Congress 
adopted a resolution still in force as Section 1990 
of the U. S. Rev. Statutes, which provides that 
“the right of expatriation is a natural and in¬ 
herent right of all people, indispensible to the en¬ 
joyment of the right of life, liberty, and the pur¬ 
suit of happiness; and in the recognition of this 
principle, this Government has freely received 
emigrants from all nations and invested them with 
the rights of citizenship.” The circular of the 
Commissioner General of Immigration, referred 
to above, was intended and has in fact led to many 


14 


unwarranted exclusions on the score of “assisted 

✓ 

immigration/’ in violation of these principles. 
Commissioner Williams’ arbitrary circular letter of 


June 28, 1909, (See Exhibit D) declared among 
other things that “in most cases it will -be unsafe for 
immigrants to arrive with less than $25 (besides 
railroad ticket to destination)” and that “immi¬ 
grants must in addition of course, satisfy the 
authorities that they will not become charges, either 
on public or private charity.” He defined his un¬ 
derstanding of charity in the following extraordiny 
terms: “Gifts to destitute immigrants after arrival 
[will not] be considered in determining whether or 
not they are qualified to land; for, except where 
such gifts are to those legally entitled to support 
(as wives, minor children, etc.) the recipients 
stand here as objects of ‘private jjiarity.’ ” (See 

reprint in Report of Commissioner General of Im¬ 
migration, 1909, pp. 132-3.) 


Similarly, assistance promised to immigrants by 
responsible philanthropists or societies (other than 
employers of contract labor) to be rendered after 
landing, is not merely not illegal, but must be con¬ 
sidered in determining if they are “likely to be¬ 
come public charges.” It is a serious misconstruc¬ 
tion of the law to regard such assurances of re¬ 
lief as in themselves making immigrants likely to 
become charges on private or public charity. 


The able editorial in the New York Evening 
Post, (quoted above in part) in criticism of Mr. 
Williams’ $25 test, has broader applicability and 
is relevant also with respect to alleged “assisted 
immigrant” cases. It said : 

“The money test can never be anything 
but tentative. In incapable hands it may 
become an instrument of injustice. It might 
be fair to call for a small sum of money from 
the Italian immigrant in ordinary times; it 
would be unjust to exclude the refugee from 
stricken Calabria, or Messina, because he 


15 


has nothing to show but his poor bundle of 
clothes. The victims of Russian massacres 
are entitled to greater consideration than 
the ordinary Russian immigrant. The 
Armenian refugee from Adana or Tarsus has 
claims upon ns that rise above the twenty- 
five dollar rule.” 

The prepaid ticket provision of the law, the 
purpose of which is salutary, is, as indicated above, 
so loosely phrased as to create much hardship and 
injustice. The law is indefinite and uncertain as 
to what is meant by a “person whose ticket or 
passage is paid for with the money of another,” 
and as to what is meant by the general term “who 
is assisted by others to come.” In addition, it es¬ 
tablishes a special burden of proof, on the immi¬ 
grant, different from any other prohibitions of the 
statute. This is decidedly confusing, since the 
courts have held that the burden of proof is upon 
the immigrant in any event. In practice, inspectors 
frequently act on the assumption that the immi¬ 
grant has a full knowledge of our immigration laws 
and regulations and must, without interrogation, 
at his own instance and despite his ignorance of 
our language and laws, satisfy the requirements of 
the law by proving affirmatively that he does not 
belong to one of the excluded classes, though in¬ 
formation on the requirements of the law be made 
inaccessible to him by the inspectors’ method of 
hearing, which often excludes counsel. Moreover, 
no such obligation as that to meet the special bur¬ 
den of proof ought to be thrust upon an immigrant 
intelligent enough to purchase his ticket here or 
have his relatives do so, instead of dealing with 
more irresponsible ticket agents and “runners” 
abroad. 

9. The provision of the law concerning likeli¬ 
hood to become a public charge should not be con¬ 
strued- or modified so as to prevent the continuance 
of the established and salutary practice of permit¬ 
ting the heads of families to come to the United 
States , in order to establish themselves here as 


16 




breadwinners and to provide homes for their 
families before sending for them from abroad. 

Argument : The hardships attending the separa¬ 
tion of members of families has attracted wide¬ 
spread attention. In efforts to prevent these 
hardships, immigration officials have recently 
adopted the practice of inquiring into the 
size and circumstances of the families of those 
male immigrants who leave their families abroad. 
In such cases, immigration officials, (basing their 
actions presumably upon a desire to prevent the ex¬ 
clusion of the members of a family whose head lias 
already emigrated or intends emigrating to the 
United States) are making these inquiries with a 
view to speculating as to whether or not the size 
or condition of the families abroad is likely to 
render them or the heads of the families coming 
here public charges. The authority to make such 
inquiries into matters outside of the jurisdiction of 
the United States, involving questions as to cost 
of living and assistance abroad, wholly beyond the 
possible range of knowledge of immigration officials 
is quite doubtful. (See American Banana Co. vs. 
United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 317.) The history of 
immigration to this country demonstrates that in 
hundreds of thousands of cases the process lias 
been for the male head of the family to come over 
first, to learn the conditions in the new country 
and prepare a home for his family. Any adminis¬ 
trative regulations, or interpretations of the law 
which prevent this salutary process would be un¬ 
necessarily cruel and would result in great detri¬ 
ment to this country itself. Had such a practice 
been in vogue hitherto, it would have deprived this 
countrv of many of its most valuable and enter- 
prising citizens. Hardships resulting from exclus¬ 
ions affecting separation of families can readily be 
avoided, first, by making the requirements of our 
laws better known, here and abroad, as suggested 
above (p. G), second, by requiring* thorough ex¬ 
aminations (physical and other) by the steamship 


17 


companies at the port of embarkation, and third, 
by the free exercise of the power to take bonds in 
all doubtful cases. 

10. The discretionary poiver under the statute 
(Sec. 2G) lodged with the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor to permit landing of immigrants u upon 
the giving of a suitable and proper bond or under¬ 
taking,” should be freely exercised. Under present 
regulations this discretionary poiver is seldom 
availed of, though it is of great service in many 
(*ases and essential in others to avoid unwarranted 
hard ships, if not cruelty. 

Argument: Despite the comprehensive language 
of Sec. 26 of the present act, giving the fullest dis¬ 
cretionary power to the Secretary to admit im¬ 
migrants under bonds, unless suffering from a 
loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, the De¬ 
partment rarely takes bonds, except to avoid 
separation of families. Cases, accordingly arise 
involving the grossest hardship and oppression, but 
the courts have declared themselves powerless to 
review the discretion of the Department (U. S. ex 
rel Clianin vs. Williams, 177 F. It. 629, C. C. A.) 
The right and wisdom of freely taking bonds in 
doubtful cases was strongly emphasized by the 
Government through Secretary Fairschild in an 
able opinion some years ago (Treasury Decision, 
No. 7698), and has also met with strong judicial 
approval (U. S. vs. Lipkis, 56 Fed. Rep. 427). An 
adequate bond protects not merely the Govern¬ 
ment, but makes it to the surety’s interest to pre¬ 
vent his charge from becoming a “public charge.” 
The objection to bonds is placed chiefly upon the 
ground that sureties often are or become irre¬ 
sponsible. This is purely a matter of administra¬ 
tion, as the law provides specifically that bonds may 
be taken by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
“in such amount and containing such conditions 
as he may prescribe.” 

It is further urged that bonded immigrants oc- 


18 


casionally disappear or change their names, so that 
the liability of bondsmen cannot be established. 
This extremely rare contingency might have weight 
under some circumstances, but it may be readily 
guarded against. For instance, one method would 
require a form of bond declaring a forfeiture, un¬ 
less the alien periodically report, personally or 
otherwise, during a fixed time limit, to some desig¬ 
nated government official. This objection also re¬ 
solves itself, therefore, into a mere matter of ef¬ 
ficient administration. 

11. The provision as to admission of children 
under sixteen years of age unaccompanied by their 
parents, has lately led to many oppressive and un¬ 
warranted exclusions and should be modified. 

Argument: The law establishes as an excluded 
class “all children under sixteen years of age un¬ 
accompanied by one or both of their parents at the. 
discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
or under such regulations as lie may from time 
to time prescribe.” Under this statute, the Secre¬ 
tary very properly established the rule, that child¬ 
ren shall not be permitted to enter the United 
States if it appears, or the circumstances indicate, 
that they are to be placed in forced or “padrone” 
servitude, or in any employment unsuited to their 
years, which implied that in other cases, they 
should be freelv admitted. It is now the general 
practice to exclude such immigrants even where 
the matters referred to in the Secretary’s rule are 
affirmatively and satisfactorily disproved. In fact, 
Commissioner Williams, in a recent circular letter 
entitled “Information as to the Immigration Laws 
and Their Execution,” says that “all children under 
sixteen, unaccompanied by either parent will be 
held at Ellis Island for special investigation and 
(a) where the parents are abroad, they will, as 
a rule, be deported. If admitted at all, this will be 
only on bond, but the Secretary will not admit even 
on bond, except in instances presenting in his opin- 


19 


ion special merit, (b) Where it is claimed that 
the parents are in the United States such children 
will usually be held at Ellis Island until the parents 
have been heard from.” It is natural that under 
such instructions most children are certain to be 
excluded. This subject presents two features there¬ 
fore: (1) the statute has vested the Secretary, 
not the Commissioner, with power to regulate this 
matter by rule, aud (2) the regulation es¬ 
tablished by the Secretary, pursuant to law, indi¬ 
cates that such children are eligible for entry ex- 
cept in the cases therein referred to. 

The Commissioner’s rule obviously is incon¬ 
sistent with the regulation, and effects the deporta¬ 
tion of voung children who came over in reliance 
upon the Secretary’s regulation, and who are ad¬ 
missible pursuant to it. Another, though less im¬ 
portant question is whether it was intended to 
limit the admission of children to the extent the 
Commissioner’s rule attempts, in view of the hard¬ 
ships and dangers attending such exclusion, es- 
peciallv where young girls are involved. 

a 1/ o o 

12. Boards of Special Inquiry and immigra¬ 
tion officials in general should keep correct and full 
records of all detention cases coming before them: 
such records to be open at all times to inspection 
by parties in interest who ought to have the right 
to make copies of the records. 

13. Where decisions of the Boards of Special 
Inquiry excluding immigrants are affirmed, on ap¬ 
peal, the immigrant or his counsel should have at 
least 48 hours’ notice prior to deportation. 

Argument: Great hardship results from the 
common practice now prevailing of delaying de¬ 
terminations until immediately before the vessel 
sails on which the immigrant is to be deported. 
Relatives and friends are prevented even from bid¬ 
ding farewell to excluded persons, or from pro¬ 
viding for their maintenance, and comfort on the 
voyage. Moreover, efforts to make application for 


20 


/ 


admission on bond after dismissal of appeals, which 
the law sanctions, are thus thwarted. Placing in 
the hands of men unlearned in the law a facile 
means of avoiding a review of decisions charged to 
be illegal and oppressive, has been in many cases a 
temptation to which they have unfortunately 
yielded. 

14 (a) Medical examiners, in accordance with 
law, should report strictly upon the medical facts 
of each case, and should not include in their reports 
any other statement whatsoever. 

(b) Physicians of the Marine Hospital Service 
should he instructed in official circulars as to their 
duties, so as to prevent divided responsibility for 
deportations because of mental or physical defects. 

Argument: At present, in very many cases, the 
physicians certify to trivial defects, such as the 
arbitrary estimate of three pounds underweight 
. and the like, and to defects and non-contagious 
nor dangerous diseases having no relationship to 
the likelihood of the immigrant’s becoming a 
public charge, particularly in the cases of 
women and children having others to support 
them. These certifications frequently take the form 
of sweeping generalizations unjustified in fact, like 
“lack of physical development,” “lack of muscular 
development.” They wholly ignore the physical and 
mental vigor of the immigrant from Eastern Europe 
whose slight physique often is misleading to super¬ 
ficial observation. The medical inspectors, unless 
improperly instructed, in many cases would not 
assume the responsibility of reporting that the de¬ 
fect is such as to tend towards the immigrant’s be¬ 
coming a public charge. The Boards of Special In¬ 
quiry, however, especially at present, are natur¬ 
ally greatly influenced by such certifications, which 
have little significance in fact. Under the pres¬ 
ent rigid and enhanced medical tests, there is no 
occasion for the introduction of such doubtful ex- 


21 


pedients. The result is a responsibility for ex¬ 
clusions divided between the medical examiners and 
the Boards of Special Inquiry, with actual respon¬ 
sibility upon neither. 

(c) The present statute making decisions of 
medical officers final even as to alleged physical de¬ 
fect being likely to affect the immigrant's becoming 
a public charge, should be modified by making the 
decisions reviewable by appeal on such points. 

Argument: Even under the theory of the pres¬ 
ent statute, the question whether alleged physical 
defect is likely to affect the immigrant’s becoming a 
public charge is a quasi-judical question and not 
really a medical one, and ought to be made review- 
able on appeal. In addition to this, however, cer¬ 
tain diseases, like trachoma, favus, etc., are classed 
as “loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases,” 
while in point of fact there are stages of them easily 
curable and far from loathsome or dangerous. The 
indiscriminate use of terms applicable only to 
certain . stages of a disease has been pro¬ 
tested against by the medical world and often 
by the courts. (See In re Di Simone, 108 F. R., 
942; U. S. vs. Nakashima, 160 F. R. 842, C. C. A. 
See also articles on Trachoma by Dr. Alger in N. Y. 
Med. Journal, April 9, 1904; by Dr. Nydegger, U. 
S. Marine Hospital Service, N. Y. Med. Journal, 
Sept. 17, 1904; and by Dr. IF F. Hansell, in N. Y. 
Med. Journal, March 16, 1907.) The Government’s 
interests would not be jeopardized if appeal, even 
on those points, were permitted to the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor, who can be depended upon 
to protect the public interests against what are 
actually “loathsome or dangerous contagious dis¬ 
eases,” and suspend ruling on admission pending 
treatment of the applicant in a hospital, Govern¬ 
mental or otherwise, at the expense of the appli¬ 
cant or of his family. 

15. The exemption from exclusion under Sec¬ 
tion 2 of the existing law of “persons convicted of 


22 


an offense purely political , not involving moral 
tnrpibude,” should he amended by the omission of 
the words “not involving moral turpitude .” 

16. The adoption in practice of such administra¬ 
tive reforms as are herein referred to will render it 
unnecessary to press the recommendation, tenta¬ 
tively made to this Commission, that the words of 
the present law “likely to become a public charge” 
be limited and defined. 


III. 

1. In answer to the inquiry , “What can the Na¬ 
tional Government do to assist immigrants on their 
arrival at United States ports?”, tve submit that 
by increasing the scope of the Government’s own 
Information Division, and by Government coopera¬ 
tion with similar bureaus, maintained by States 
or by private charitable organizations, it can en¬ 
courage immigrants to go to districts where they 
are most likely to prosper, and thus be judiciously 
distributed throughout the country. 

Argument: The federal act of August 13, 1882, 
under which the national government took over the 
regulation of the subject of immigration, expressly 
provided that the liead-tax collections should be 
paid into the United States Treasury, and consti¬ 
tute a fund to be called the “immigrant fund,” to 
be used not merely “to defray the expense of regu¬ 
lating immigration,” but also for “the care of im¬ 
migrants arriving in the United States, [and] for 
the relief of such as are in distress;” and it further 
expressly authorized the Secretary of the Treasury 
to make contracts with State officials for the pur¬ 
pose, among others, of “providing for the support 
and relief of such immigrants therein landing as 
may fall into distress or need public aid.” The 
obvious purpose of this provision was thus to com¬ 
pensate the seacoast States for the revenues which 
they were deprived of and which until then, they 


23 


had collected by a head-tax on immigrants. These 
States had in part freely used these revenues for the 
benefit of immigrants falling into temporary dis¬ 
tress after landing. (See Edye vs. Robertson, 112 
U. S. 580.) The statutes and judicial decisions of 
New York and Massachusetts show that the theory 
underlying these statutes was that, while people 
having an established residence in various countries 
or municipalities had a right to share in the “poor 
relief” funds of such localities, to tide them over 
periods of temporary distress, newly arrived im¬ 
migrants had no such “established residence,” and 
that it was accordingly fair and just to collect a 
head-tax from immigrants and have such immi¬ 
grant fund employed in part for the relief of im¬ 
migrants requiring aid. In the administration of 
these laws, the States moreover recognized that in¬ 
dividuals might suddenly and temporarily require 
a little public relief during hard times in case of 
sickness or other calamity, which did not make 

*y 7 

them paupers, and subject to the legal disabilities 
of paupers. (It is a striking contrast to this to 
note our present procedure by which the recei Pt 
of merely free hospital treatment, at the expense 
of state or city, within three years after their ar¬ 
rival by aliens ignorant of the consequences, is 
construed to justify their deportation on the theory 
of their having become paupers or public charges, i 
When, in 1891, the federal government provided 
for the appointment of its own officials to execute 
the immigration laws, abolishing the employment 
of state officials, much of the expense attached to 
the enforcement of these laws became a direct 
charge upon the federal government, and all sub¬ 
sidies or payments out of the Immigrant Fund to 
the States ceased. In fact, however, the States and 
subdivisions thereof, continued to bear a portion 
of the expense arising from the care or relief of 
needy aliens, though the national government ceas¬ 
ed to contribute in reimbursement therefor. It 
was accordingly mere justice for the Government 
to establish an “Information Division” at its own 


24 


expense, by Section 40 of the Act of 1907, “to pro¬ 
mote a beneficial distribution of aliens admitted 
into the United States among the several states and 
territories desiring immigration,” and to concern 
itself to this extent at least with the progress of 
aliens after their landing and admission to this 
country. 

% 

This Information Division lias already done ad¬ 
mirable work, and it should be developed by the 
Government and not handicapped and embarrassed, 
The statute in question, moreover, in terms, con¬ 
templates governmental aid to similar State agen¬ 
cies. This should be further extended to include 
State and municipal Immigration Bureaus and the 
like. The Government should also cooperate with 
various quasi-public charitable organizations which 
render important public service in their efforts to 
advise immigrants as to place of settlement and 
facilities for getting work at prevailing rates, and 
in looking after them and affecting their distribu¬ 
tion through the country. Such disinterested bene¬ 
volent agencies are entitled to assistance and en¬ 
couragement from the Government, as they render 
at their own expense, quasi-governmental service. 
As was so well said by Attorney General Wicker- 
sham (27 Opinions 497) : 

“It is certainly not against the policy of 
the law to send an agent into a foreign coun¬ 
try to arrange for the transportation of 
aliens whose emigration has already been 
determined upon, and to secure their settle¬ 
ment in a section of the country where the 
industrial conditions are such that their 
presence is badly needed. As appears from 
an inspection of the reports of the Commis¬ 
sioner General of Immigration the most dif¬ 
ficult problem in connection with the immi¬ 
gration question, is to secure a proper dis¬ 
tribution of the immigrants. 

Manifestly any plan which has in view a dis¬ 
tribution of the alien immigrants among the 




t 


25 


rural population and to procure their ser¬ 
vices in the development of industries in 
which labor is deficient and thus remove 
them from competition with American la¬ 
borers in those A T ocations which are over¬ 
crowded, is in entire accord with the spirit 
of our immigration laws.” 


The work of the Galveston “Jewish Immigrants' 
Information Bureau” is of practical interest in this 
connection. It aims at preventing the congestion 
of immigrants of the Jewish faith in the large 
northern and eastern cities by arranging for their 
distribution from Galveston throughout the West 
and Southwest, instead of going to New York 
and other northern and eastern cities. The 
work is based on the theory that the distribution 
would be best effected at the home of the immi¬ 
grant, instead of from large American cities where 
relatives and friends can easily prevail upon them 
to remain. For this purpose, a number of immi¬ 
grants, mainly men, sailed from Bremen to Gal¬ 
veston under the auspices of the Jewish Territorial 
Organization and the Galveston Bureau, the Gal¬ 
veston Committee and affiliated societies aiding 
them to find suitable work in tlieir lines of occupa¬ 
tion in the West and Southwest. The voyage is 
longer and more expensive, but the public-spirited 
interest of the Bureau through affiliated commit¬ 
tees and societies, has succeeded in finding suitable 
positions for the immigrants after arrival, and has 
done noble work in distributing these immigrants 
who would have otherwise landed and remained at 
the eastern ports. 

Accordingly the Government and especially the 
Bureau of Immigration should cooperate with and 
aid the work of such organizations as the Galveston 
“Jewish Immigrants’ Information Bureau” and not 
hinder their beneficial activities. It should cooper¬ 
ate with and aid the work of such organizations as 
the Industrial Removal Office which has removed 


26 


to the interior of the country away from congested 
districts, over 50,000 Jewish immigrants since 1901, 
and made them self-supporting workers in their 
various callings in the interior of substantially 
every state of the union. (See the account of the 
society’s activities in the argument of its former 
president, Cyrus L. Sulzberger, Esq., Exhibit C, 
Hearings before House Committee on Immigration, 
61st Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 290 et seq.) The Government 
should also encourage the work of fraternal or¬ 
ganizations like the Independent Order B’nai 
B’rith, which, through lodges and members scat¬ 
tered all over the country have furthered the bene¬ 
ficent work of the organizations mentioned. The 
Government should also cooperate with and aid 
such organizations as the “Jewish Agricultural and 
Industrial Aid Society,” which induces Jews to take 
up farming and aids them in that vocation, being 
in turn aided by the “Baron de Hirsch Agricultural 
School,” at Woodbine, N. J., and the Doylestown 
“National Farm School,” presided over by Rev. 
Dr. J. Krauskopf. The Baron de Hirsch Fund, 
in addition to subsidizing several of these organiza¬ 
tions, maintains a free “Trade School,” for resi¬ 
dent Jewish young men in New York City. 

The Government should in like manner cooperate 
with and aid the work of such organizations, of 
all denominations and nationalities, as look after 
the housing and employment of immigrants and 
maintain agents at Ellis Island and elsewhere. It 
should also aid the various well-managed Employ¬ 
ment Bureaus, maintained by commendable private 
charities. The Secretary might profitably convene 
from time to time, conferences of representatives 
of such organizations, as the Department has done 
in other matters, and advise with them as to meas¬ 
ures calculated to advance their common ends, and 
secure their recommendations before making 
changes in the regulations or recommending amend¬ 
ments of the law. (See Report of N. Y. State Com¬ 
mission of Immigration, March 3, 1909, Exhibit E, 


which made important recoinendations along these 
lines. These sugestions were in the main enacted 
into law by Chapter 514 of the Laws of 1910, of the 
State of New York, establishing a Bureau of In¬ 
dustries and Immigration. (See also the paper on 
“Protection of the Alien,” by Miss Frances A. 
Kellor, formerly Secretary of the North American 
Civic League for Immigrants, now the head of the 
N. Y. State Bureau of Immigration, in the recent 
publication of the Young Men’s Christian Asso¬ 
ciation Press, 1910, entitled “The Immigrant and 
the Community,” Exhibit F.) 


IV. 

In answer to the inquiry: “What can the Na¬ 
tional Government do to promote the assimilation 
or Americanization of immigrants,” we direct at¬ 
tention to the work of various Jewish organizations, 
referred to in the Hearing before the House Com¬ 
mittee on Immigration, ( 61st Congress, 2nd Sess., 
March 11,1910, pp. 296, 301-3, 305-6, 339, 314-6, 354, 
363.) which indicates that the Government can do 
much, both directly and through stimulating and 
aiding other organizations. 

The United States Commissioner of Education 
should issue Bulletins directing the attention of 
local education boards to the admirable results 
accomplished in the Americanization of children 
and adults by private philanthropy, notably, the 
Baron de Hirsch Fund, in maintaining special 
classes for immigrants, day and night. The Baron 
de Hirsch Fund has for nearly twenty years sub¬ 
sidized such classes at the Educational Alliance in 
New York, which have been so successful that the 
City has recognized their value and has now taken 
them over for the benefit of all denominations. Tins 
Fund subsidizes similar classes in Boston,Brooklyn, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Pitts¬ 
burg, and Cleveland. Similarly, classes in Civics 


28 


and American.. History have been maintained 
by the Educational Alliance in New York and 
many other public and private organizations 
have engaged in similar work. The admirable 
results accomplished are not, however, as widely 
known as they should be, and it is within the pro¬ 
vince of the Government to promote such work 
by disseminating information concerning it. In 
the Territories it should itself establish similar 
classes. • . 

Efforts at distribution, such as have alreadv 
been referred to, (pp. 24-27) will also hasten the ac¬ 
complishment of this end, though in the larger so- 
called “congested” districts, this work of Amer¬ 
icanization and assimilation, has been developed 
more fully than in less thickly populated sections. 
By an intelligent cooperation between the U. S. 
“Information Division” and the States, the im¬ 
portance of overcoming congestion in large cities, 
and the best methods of doing so, may also be em¬ 
phasized. In fact, the New York City Board of 
Education, to aid in providing adequate facilities 
for the education of immigrant children, has just 
requested periodical information from the federal 
immigration authorities as to the number, age and 
prospective residence of alien children arriving at 
the port of New York. (See: Exhibit E, Re¬ 
port of Commission on Immigration of State of 
New York, pp. 93-109.) 

It ought, however, to be remembered that the 
great force for assimilation and Americanization 
is in the immigrants themselves. The Russian im¬ 
migrants for instance have invariably cut loose 
from their oppressing native country and have 
come here determined to cast their lot with us. 
Their children are abnormally eager for our school¬ 
ing and it will be found that the only stimulus 
really required for them is sitting or even standing 
room in our schools. They have no wish to look 
back. Their eager anticipation is to become Amer- 


29 


ican citizens. Even the older people who acquire 
the English language with greater difficulty have 
already partially Anglicized their native Yiddish. 


Y. 

CONCLUSION. 


In conclusion, we desire to renew the opposition 
to sundry restrictive bills and amendments now be¬ 
fore Congress, as explained by our representatives 
in the hearing before the House Committee on Im¬ 
migration and Naturalization on March 11, 1910, 
and submitted herewith as Exhibit C. 

For the reasons there stated, we, as American 

citizens, actuated by a desire to preserve the best 

traditions of this country as an asylum for the 

€/ */ 

able-bodied citizens of other countries who suffer 
from oppression and persecution, and sincerely be¬ 
lieving that the addition to our population of in¬ 
telligent, industrious and moral persons, will great¬ 
ly increase our national productiveness and gen¬ 
eral prosperity, emphatically oppose amendments 
to the law which 

» 

(1) increase the Head-Tax, (Exhibit C, pp. 
276, 278-9, 317, 338.) 

(2) repeal or modify the bonding provisions, 
( Ibid. p. 352-3.) 

(3) establish a literacy test, (Ibid. pp. 276-7, 
280-1, 286, 303-5, 324-5, 337-8, 353-4.) 

(4) prescribe physical examinations for immi¬ 
grants, such as are prescribed for admission into 
the U. S. Army, (Ibid, p. 323.) 

(5) establish a monetary requirement, (Ibid. 
p. 322.) 


30 


(6) require “moral certificates” for admission, 
(particularly from Russian refugees), (Ibid. pp. 
325, 346.) 


(7) abolish the Information Division, (Ibid. 
p. 275, 290-5, 342-4.) 


(8) establish as an excluded class, persons 
“found” to be “economically undesirable” persons, 
(Ibid. pp. 287, 321-2, 346.) 


(9) require all aliens to secure registration cer¬ 
tificates under heavy penalties, (Ibid. pp. 318-21.) 


(10) increase the period to five years (now 
three) within which deportations may be ordered 
cn the ground of “public charge,” (Ibid. p. 279.) 

(11) establish a race or color test for admission 
of aliens, contrary to the fundamental principles 
of our Government and in violation of treaty 
rijilts, (Ibid, pp. 308-10, 316, 326-30.) 


31 







































* 




r 









